YOUNG, ADMINISTRATRIX,
v.
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An administratrix brought suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act to recover damages for her husband's death allegedly caused by railroad company negligence, and a jury verdict was rendered in her favor. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and directed entry of judgment for the railroad company on the grounds that the evidence did not justify jury submission and that a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was properly granted. The Supreme Court held that while the lower court correctly determined the evidence did not warrant jury submission, it erred in granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and therefore reversed the direction to enter judgment for the defendant and remanded for a new trial.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By
Mr. Chief Justice White.
As administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, the plaintiff in error sued to recover for the loss occasioned by his death alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant railroad company. Over the objection of the defendant the case was submitted by the trial court to the jury and from the judgment entered on the verdict rendered against the railroad company, error was by the company prosecuted from the Circuit Court of Appeals. On the hearing that court concluding that the evidence did not justify the submission of the case to the jury, reversed the judgment and in passing upon a motion made by the railroad company in the trial court, pursuant to the Pennsylvania practice for judgment in its favor non obstante veredicto it was held that the motion was well taken and the case was remanded to the trial court not for a new trial, but with directions to enter a judgment for the défendant. (200. Fed. Rep. 359.) As the case as made by the pleadings depended not merely upon diverse citizenship, but was expressly based on the Employers’ Liability Act, error was prosecuted from this court.
We shall not undertake to analyze the evidence or review the grounds which led the court below to conclude that error was committed in submitting the case to the jury, because we think it is adequate to say that after a careful examination of the record we see no reason for holding that the court below erred in so deciding. As regards however, the ruling on the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, it is apparent in view of the recent decision in Slocum v. Insurance Company, 228 U. S. 364, that error was committed. It follows that our duty is to affirm and modify; that is, to affirm the judgment of reversal and to modify by reversing so much of the action of the court below as directed the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant. Conformably to this conclusion . it is ordered that the judgment of reversal be, and the same is hereby affirmed, and that the direction for entry of judgment in favor of defendant be reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside its judgment and grant a new trial.
Affirmed and modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1957)…rmed. 1912 Term. Troxell v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 227 U. S. 434; reversal of judgment for plaintiff reversed. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Earnest, 229 U. S. 114; judgment for plaintiff affirmed. [*550] 1913 Term. Young v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 232 U. S. 602; remand for entry of judgment n. o. v. for defendant modified and affirmed. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. Lindsay, 233 U. S. 42; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Southern R. Co. v. Bennett, 233 U. S. 80; affirmance of judgment for pl…
-
Clemence v. Hudson & M. Ry. Co., 11 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1926)…l, and remanded the case to the trial court, but with directions for a new trial, and reversing that part of the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, which directed a verdict for the defendant because of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment. 232 U. S. 602, 34 S. Ct. 451, 58 L. Ed. 750. In Pedersen v. D., L. & W. R. R., 229 U. S. 146, 33 S. Ct. 648, 57 L. Ed. 1125, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 153, the plaintiff recovered for negligence of his employer while both were in defendant’s service. There was a judgment…1 / 2
-
Schiedt v. Dimick, 70 F.2d 558 (1st Cir. 1934)…under the Seventh Amendment over the verdict of a jury have been defined by the Supreme Court in Slocum v. New York Life Ins. Co., 228 U. S. 364, 33 S. Ct. 523, 57 L. Ed. 879, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1029; Young, Adm’x, v. Central R. R. Co. of New Jersey, 232 U. S. 602, 34 S. Ct. 451, 58 L. Ed. 750; Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, supra; Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Herbert, 116 U. S. 642, 6 S. Ct. 590, 29 L. Ed. 755; Minneapolis, etc., Ry. v. Moquin, supra; Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. et al., 287 U. S.…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Slocum v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 228 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1913)